Re: Re: [RFC] is_literal

From: Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 11:01:30 +0000
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC] is_literal
References: 1 2 3  Groups: php.internals 
Request: Send a blank email to internals+get-114946@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message 
On 18.06.21 08:00, Craig Francis wrote:

As there’s been no issues raised with supporting integers, and doing so
will help adoption, the implementation will be updated to allow them.

Now to choose the name, with the options is_known() from Joe and
is_trusted() from Moritz:

https://strawpoll.com/bd2qed2xs

Keep in mind it might also become a dedicated type in the future.


I think "trusted" is a good option, also if you think about adding it as
a type in the future and how it reads for somebody looking through code.
Something like

public function process(string&trusted $input): string&trusted;

Would be good in terms of readability and captures the meaning quite
well (although having a specific trusted string type might be more
sensible, to avoid these intersection types everywhere). "trusted" could
be used in a similar way like the "pure" annotations in Psalm/PHPStan
(just for a different meaning of course): to signify where non-trusted
variables should be reported and could even be used for whole objects to
signify they should only ever get and return trusted variables.

Thread (69 messages)

« previous php.internals (#114946) next »